Diagnosis and Quantification of Cognitive Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To standardize a method to measure cognitive fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). BACKGROUND: Many patients with MS complain of cognitive fatigue, defined as a decline in cognitive performance during a task requiring sustained activity. Until now there has not been a standardized way to detect cognitive fatigue or determine its severity. METHODS: We administered the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT) to 130 normal controls and 100 randomly selected patients with MS, and compared the number of correct responses between the first third and last third of the test. RESULTS: The controls averaged 2 more correct responses in the last third of the PASAT than in the first third. The patients with MS averaged 2 to 3 fewer correct responses in the last third than the first third. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that comparing responses between the first and last thirds of the PASAT is a reliable method to measure cognitive fatigue in patients with MS. We also present normative data to be used to determine whether patients with MS have cognitive fatigue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it